Our long-time reader, commenter, and news tipster Reader From Chicago sends this guest-essay with his overview of the luminaries of the “Intellectual Dark Web”.
The True Intellectual Dark Web
by Reader From Chicago
On May 8, 2018, The New York Times published an opinion piece entitled “Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web”.
The intellectuals presented in that piece have little in common with each other politically. One is a feminist. Another is a anti-Trump conservative. Nevertheless, according to the article, they have some qualities in common:
But they all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And third, some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive audiences elsewhere.
This essay is a response to that article. It will attempt to present intellectuals who better exemplify the three qualities listed above. Furthermore, the intellectuals presented in this essay could be described as intellectuals of the anti-globalist Right. You will not see them published in The Weekly Standard or in the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. They present their views in online magazines, YouTube videos, and self-published books.
The New York Times article is an attempt at misdirection. The intellectuals propped up by that article as thought leaders might disagree with the Left in some cases. But that group does not come out against globalism. The Times article attempts to drive attention away from anti-globalist thinkers.
Steve Sailer writes about race relations, gender issues, politics, immigration, IQ, genetics, movies, and sports for online magazines such as VDARE.com, Taki’s Magazine, and The Unz Review. In an article published in November 2000, “GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote”, Steve Sailer argued that instead of trying to increase their share of the minority vote, Republicans would do better by increasing their share of the white vote.
This ‘Sailer strategy’ was shown to be correct. In 2000, George W. Bush was elected with 271 Electoral College votes. In 2004, he won re-election with 286 Electoral College votes.
Donald Trump’s views on immigration, trade, and foreign policy were meant to appeal to the white working class. Trump lost some states that Bush won in 2004, but Trump won others that were lost by Bush. Trump’s 304 Electoral College votes beat what Bush received in 2000 and 2004. Steve Sailer showed more political savvy than well-paid political consultants.
Steven Sailer is responsible for coining the phrase ‘invade the world, invite the world.’ That pithy phrase describes the policy of the Republican establishment, which is tied to two special interests: the military-industrial complex and big business. Globalism serves their interests, and harms the interests of a majority of the population.
Paul Joseph Watson is writer and editor at Infowars.com. He calls himself a classical liberal on his Twitter profile. He has numerous YouTube videos, and at this time has 1,333,989 subscribers.
As might be expected, he is commenting on the de-platforming of his employer. He opposed Trump’s airstrikes on Syria. His attacks on idiocy on Twitter I find entertaining. But the ratio of idiocy to sensibleness on Twitter is much in idiocy’s favor. He has done videos about the explosion in migrant crime in Europe. In one of his videos about migrant crime, “The Cultural Enrichment of Germany”, he shows German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a Muslim headdress.
His videos about the crappiness of modern art I think show high creative thinking. In these videos he discusses works of art which include, but are not limited to, the following: red scribbles on a canvas, cardboard boxes glued to a wall, an unfinished jigsaw puzzle, nails hammered into a piece of burlap, and Yoko Ono screaming.
Tarl Warwick, known by his screen name Styxhexenhammer666, presents his views in internet videos and postings, and self published books. The reader of this essay, upon seeing Tarl Warwick’s screen name, might be concerned. His views have changed over time. In a YouTube video, he explains why he left Satanism and now is into paganism and occultism.
His videos are generally supportive of Trump. Yet he has given one of the best criticisms of Trump’s policies: the Space Force. It is a sign of the intellectual poverty of the Left that the best criticisms of Trump come not from the Left, but from the Right. In his video “Thoughts on the Space Force” he says he is 75% opposed to it on libertarian principles and pragmatic principles and 25% of him — the scifi part — thinks it would be kinda cool to have space marines and stuff.
Fjordman is active in the counter-jihad movement, self-published a book entitled Defeating Eurabia, and wrote numerous essays for publications such as The Gatestone Institute and Gates of Vienna. Fjordman is a giant among us.
Instead of touching upon his counter-jihad writings, this essay will bring attention to his thoughts on a non-jihad subject that are (1) interesting and (2) true. In his essay “What is the Cause of Low Birth Rates?”, which was published by Gates of Vienna, Fjordman considers the possible causes for low birth rates in First World countries. Fjordman wrote: “Among the reasons frequently cited are the welfare state, feminism and secularism. However, if you look closely at the statistics from various countries, the picture gets quite complex, and there doesn’t appear to be an automatic correlation between low birth rates and any one of these factors.”
Very good!
I liked Paul Joseph Watson’s reference to “Yoko Ono screaming” as an example of the crappiness of modern art. In the film “The Rolling Stones’ Rock and Roll Circus”, made in 1968 but (understandably) not released till 1995, one number features Keith Richards, John Lennon and others playing while Yoko caterwauls; only the great (but relatively unknown) Israeli classical violinist Ivry Gitlis (still with us, I believe, in his 90s) has the honesty to show his distaste.
Dismal reasoning!
Reader from Chicago is trying to preserve purity of conservative thought and, as so many before him, only divides the right and the true forces of renewal.
What distinguishes the IDW of Peterson, the Weinsteins, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin and many others from the polemicists which Reader f. C. attempts to paint as the “true” intellectuals is in fact the search for truth that is happening among the former and the echo chamber conversation of the latter.
Fail.
I like much of what is published in Taki’s Mag and V.Dare–and this is despite the fact that some really foul antisemitism is displayed in the Taki Mag comments (there has to be a reason antisemites hang out there). I’m less familiar with the Unz Review but am reliably told that some really disgusting antisemic pieces and comments are to be found there as well. Blaming everything on “the Joos” is a symptom of intellectual laziness to be found on the Right as well as on the Left. It’s also, in a left-hand way, a tremendous compliment to Jews who, according to the antisemites, are responsible for both socialism and capitalism and manage to control most activities known to man on planet Earth.
Taki discontinued disqus comments 3 months ago. It is no longer possible for anyone to comment immediately following any article at Taki’s Magazine. All comments on all articles are now by email only. The email comments are carefully curated.
I do not think that antiSemitism should serve as a trigger for automatic rejection. I’ve seen my share of anti-Semitic remarks and even anti-Semitic moderating. I had one instance where every comment of mine was rejected after I mentioned my Jewish background.
Yet, antiSemitism should be treated as any other comment: the commenter should be free to make a fool of himself as long as he does not engage in personal invective or advocacy of violence. It’s too easy to dismiss all comments about Jews as …. well, as automatic “racism”. In fact, as we know, Jews in the US are widely divided in religious practice, political leanings and attitude towards America. So, any blanket comment about “the Jews” ought to set the reader to be alert for an opinion that might very well be ill-informed, illogical and not really worthy of consideration. And yet, I don’t believe such comments should automatically be rejected.
Although, I know it is the policy of GoV to mostly reject debate about “the Jews”, partly because once you allow that line of contributions, you attract a vast number of commentators who, in fact, think only in terms of “the Jews” and the discussion deteriorates. It’s a dilemma.
Yes. It starts what I call a “Jew Fight”, which wrecks the thread. It attracts the sort of people who don’t usually comment and have nothing useful to say — it’s just JEWS JEWS JEWS straight down the line. Arguments about how many Jews (if any) were exterminated by Hitler. Arguments about what the crematoria at Auschwitz were really used for (or if they even existed). Harping on the “Jewish Bolshevik” nature of the USSR. On and on and on, 100 comments, 200 comments, until everybody who wants to have a real discussion has fled, and there is no one left but Jew-haters and a few hardy souls who misguidedly think it is possible to reason with Jew-haters.
I’ve been doing this for 14 years now, and I’ve seen the same scenario unfold over and over again. It’s always the same; I could write the script for it ahead of time. I’m heartily sick of it, and I’m not having any more of it at Gates of Vienna. Jew-fights will be ruthlessly suppressed.
Now, reasonable discussion of sensitive topics concerning Jews — that’s another matter. Unfortunately, unless ruthless suppression is applied, such a discussion IMMEDIATELY morphs into a Jew fight. Jew-haters who are normally passive lurkers are suddenly eager to enter the discussion so they can enlighten us about the evil JOOOOS.
I’m sick of it.
P.S. Feel free to omit my previous comment if you feel it will arouse the kind of written reactions that you would rather not have.
Thanks for your understanding. But things are quiet in late summer, so your pov regarding those sites is of interest.
“Donald Trump’s views on immigration, trade, and foreign policy were meant to appeal to the white working class.”
I disagree with this.
Trumps views were meant to appeal to American populist nationalists, which has it’s largest bloc of supporters, but is not limited to, the white electorate.
It is significant that Trump received as many, and likely many more, black and Hispanic votes than the panderers Bush, Bush, Romney, and McCain.
The reason is that blacks and Hispanics who support American values saw a Trump administration as the best chance they have of living in a vibrant economy and raising their children to have their own values. Obviously, the previous Republican panderers were almost as likely as the Democrats to create a toxic environment for people of value, so when Trump came, he motivated his underground supporters to come out and vote.
One specific incident that sticks in my mind is the video of the Congress during Trump’s state-of-the union message. The dashiki-clad, anti-American Black Caucus sat on their hands, but the looks on their faces was palpably sour when Trump mentioned the unemployment among blacks was lowest in history. “Horrors”. Blacks supporting themselves rather than sponging on welfare and set-asides? Who’s going to elect the Black Caucus then?
Now this is a good criticism. I’d rather now say that Trump’s policy proposals wasn’t just meant to appeal to the white electorate but was more inclusive.